Monday, January 26, 2009

He Didn't Start The Fire

There's a Billy Joel slam on Slate (via 3Quarksdaily) titled "The awfulness of Billy Joel, explained". I am not entirely sure if the Slate piece is intended as music criticism or just a parody of music criticism.

Also on 3QuarksDaily, a commenter has posted a link to a "conversation" between a blogger and Billy Joel himself. Basically, the blogger trashed Billy Joel for indulging in vocal trickery during a performance of the national anthem. Billy Joel responded with a "fuck you". Read the post and the comments by Billy Joel.

12 comments:

I have to say I agreed with a lot of what that Slate piece said. Even though, unlike Rosenbaum, I don't think Joel is awful, just mediocre. And I resent the comparison to Wyeth, who I'm actually fond of.

Personally, I think the problem with Joel is that he insists on placing himself in the wrong category. He's not the worst pop singer ever - he's actually a pretty good pop singer - but that's all he is: a savvy entertainer who turns out inauthentic easy-listening numbers. Great rock artist he's not. The man has about as much in common with Bob Dylan as Madonna has with Joni Mitchell.

BJ is not a bad singer or a writer. He's written some very good melodies, which I think is his real strength. And even though I can't listen to a single song on "Greatest Hits", I don't think he deserves to be lumped in the same category as Barry Manilow.

Ha. You made me dig out my copy of "Faking it" by Hugh Barker and Yuval Johnson (which I promised to review some time ago, and never did). The question the book deals with is authenticity in popular music and what it means; for example, the first chapter argues that what we think of as "authentic" delta blues is an invention of whites like John Lomax, while the preferred music of early Delta bluesmen was much more eclectic.

The book has a chapter comparing Billy Joel with Neil Young. Excerpt:

"Whatever Neil Young and Billy Joel may have in common, it's not their fans... [pairwise comparisons of several of their songs and their common themes] Like Young's, Joel's hatred of phoniness and insistence of honesty are all over his songs... If the aesthetic of authenticity has any meaning, why is there such a gulf between the critical reception of two such 'honest' and patently autobiographical singer/songwriters?

"Part of the reason, of course, has nothing to do with 'honesty' at all. In his music, Billy Joel often comes across as the kind of guy one tends to avoid at social events, obnoxious and bullying. Most of what he sings is either cliché or bombastic, mawkish or lecherous. [Another long pairwise comparison of various Joel and Young songs...]"

Entertaining stuff. And the "bullying" observation seems spot-on, in the light of the blogger conversation that you link to.

The criticism that BJ comes across as an obnoxious person in his songs strikes me as a bit strange. Many of Dylan's "love" songs have a mean central character but that doesn't stop us from loving his music. (Of course, the "cliche, bombastic, mawkish" criticism is perfectly understandable.)

km - I think the "obnoxious person" comments don't account for Billy Joel's popularity, unless it is a vibe that only arty critics get and the riff-raff don't notice it. (Which is possible I suppose. Is the loud abrasive guy you tend to avoid at parties the same guy who tends to be surrounded by all the pretty women?)

But I quoted only partially. They go on to say that even in terms of his "authenticity", he is different from Neil Young. Joel (like Lennon) thrusts his personality in your face, "This is me, deal with it". (In my opinion, it works for Lennon.) Young (like Dylan) is not sure who he is, and it changes year to year, so he invites you to help discover himself.